Technical property details from pleadings may be utilized to assess stamp duty for completing a decree.

The litigation stems from a consent decree passed by a Division Bench on May 22, 1997, based on a "Mittal Settlement" concerning property partition

While the settlement identified properties, it lacked technical descriptions (e.g., title deed details), leading the Collector to report an inability to assess stamp duty for the decree's registration

Previously, the Defendant No. 1 sought to amend the decree under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), but this was rejected by the High Court in 1999 and the Supreme Court in 2009 on the grounds that the omissions did not constitute clerical errors

Subsequently, a coordinate Bench on April 3, 2019, directed the Department to draw up the decree by collecting particulars from the pleadings and materials on record, noting that a party should not be left remediless

Defendant No. 1 filed the present application and a supplementary affidavit providing the technical details of the properties to facilitate the Collector’s assessment

1. Whether the provision of technical property details via a supplementary affidavit constitutes an impermissible modification or addition to a decree previously finalized by the Supreme Court.

2. Whether the doctrine of merger and principles of finality of litigation prevent the Court from considering technical details not explicitly stated in the original "Mittal Settlement."

3. Whether the Collector can be directed to assess stamp duty based on technical details furnished through a supplementary affidavit.

The Court applied Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding the correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments or decrees

It also relied on Order XX Rule 6 and 6A of the CPC and Rule 11 of Chapter 16 of the Original Side Rules of the Calcutta High Court, which mandate the drawing up of a decree following a judgment and allow for "short recitals" to be added by the Registrar or Master

The court considered the "Doctrine of Merger" as defined in Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kerala

the principle against reopening decided issues from State Bank of India v. Ram Chandra Dubey.

The Court reasoned that the previous rejection of the Section 152 application did not act as a bar to the current relief because those proceedings were confined to the narrow scope of "correcting errors" in the decree

The Court emphasized the 2019 coordinate Bench order, which held that the Department is mandated to draw up the decree and can collect particulars from existing "pleadings and materials on record"

The Court found that the technical details provided in the supplementary affidavit were not "new" evidence but were derived from existing title deeds and previous pleadings

Thus, furnishing these details did not constitute an "improvement" of the case or a modification of the decree’s substance, but was a necessary procedural step to satisfy the Collector's requirements for stamp duty assessment

The Court rejected the "doctrine of merger" argument, noting that the current prayer is for the completion and registration of the decree to allow the parties to enjoy its fruits, rather than a modification of its judicial terms

It directed the parties to file the requisite "Form No. 1" (as requested by the Collector) containing the technical property details within a fortnight. Upon receipt, the Collector is ordered to assess the stamp duty and submit a report to the High Court within four weeks. The Court rejected the prayers for a stay of this order made by the opposing parties.